Kevin O’Brien wrote a decent article in the Plain Dealer
during Holy Week concerning the state of marriage. He definitely spoke against the political
correct position. In part he said:
“Marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization and the
smallest functional molecule of the organism that we call society. One may reject the idea that God ordained
heterosexual marriage as part of his plant for humanity, but one cannot reject
the argument that nature ordained it as a matter of practical necessity. Only heterosexual relationships can
perpetuate the species. There simply is
no other way of going about it.”
That’s called Natural Law.
He goes on further (and this is where I think he really
makes his case) “If we put the law at odds with the order established and
replicated though out nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new
legal boundary line?” In other words, if
we redefine marriage to be any two people who want to commit themselves to each
other for life, why stop there? What
about polygamy? Why should such people
be denied the right to marry? What about
the case of the mother and daughter who want to be recognized as married,
not for any indecent purpose, but because they want to team up to raise the
daughter’s child and want legal protections and benefits? Why shouldn’t the men of Saint Andrew’s Abby (who
take a vow of stability) be recognized as all married so that they may be
protected and receive benefits? The
harm? Once marriage can mean anything,
it ceases to mean anything.
I’ve hear people say that it wouldn’t go any further than
same sex marriage. That the idea of it going
any further than that is just silly. But
nobody can say why or what there would be to put such a boundary up to stop it
there – a boundary that would now be clearly imaginary.
Unfortunately I think he hurts his case by saying people
could start marrying across species and with inanimate objects. Other
species and such objects cannot give their consent.
After finishing the article we said, “Man, is he going to
get crucified tomorrow” and he was. But
if there is going to be any meeting ground on this issue, it will be with
points such as this. “God ordained it”
as much as I may believe it is not going to wash with those who don’t believe that.





















